Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
Tom Hardy's performance. (2 more)
Better CGI than the first film.
The film is stupidly fun.
It is REALLY dumb. (2 more)
Shriek is a wasted character.
Woody Harrelson's "hair."
Idiotic Gold
Venom was an unlikely hit for Sony Pictures making over $850 million worldwide – despite being a sloppy mess of a film.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Injustice 2 in Video Games
Oct 17, 2017 (Updated Oct 3, 2018)
Technically sound (1 more)
Good online functionality
Naff character redesigns (1 more)
Lack of character motivations
Gods & Monsters
Quick disclaimer before I start the review, I am not a huge online gamer. Whilst playing through Injustice 2, I dabbled in a few online fights and played a few co op games with my better half, but for the most part, this is a review of the single player story portion of the game.
I was so pleasantly surprised when I played the first Injustice game. I am a big DC fan, but fighting games aren’t one of my preferred genres in gaming, yet this fighting game set in the DC universe blew me away. The story was intriguing, the characters were diverse and it was a unique taste on a beloved universe. Therefore, the sequel had a fair amount to live up to and while it is still a fun fighting game with a multitude of colourful characters, it doesn’t feel anywhere near as special as Gods Among Us did.
The setup this time around revolves around Brainiac descending upon the earth in search of Kal-El and Kara, the last two remaining Kryptonians and eliminating them. Since the events of the last game, Batman has been keeping Superman in a special prison that suppresses his powers and the world has remained relatively free of crime, however Brainaic’s arrival changes all this. From here onwards we have our superhero story, which sees epic battles occur and mortal enemies being forced to work together against a common evil.
Most importantly, the game is fun. Gameplay feels pretty tight, which is both a positive and a negative when compared to Gods Among Us. The controls feel more solid and purposeful, but also feel more restrictive and less forgiving since the last time. This makes button bashing a void method and forces you to learn intricate button sequences if you want to pull off a decent combo. Thankfully, the super-moves are really fun to watch and make you feel awesome when you manage to successfully pull them off.
I’m going to delve deeper into the game’s story mode, so if you want to avoid spoilers, I would skip this paragraph. I was so looking forward to the story mode in this game, I loved the story mode in the first game and was relying on this one to deliver also, unfortunately I found it jarring and hard to swallow, even as a lifelong comic book fan. The story in Gods Among Us was controversial amongst DC fans, as it turned a number of iconic characters on their head, causing them to fight on the opposing side from what we are used to seeing. In that game though, I thought it worked, character motivations were clear and there was context given for the heroes and villains who switched sides. This time around, characters switch sides faster than a tennis ball at Wimbledon and half the time, there is no apparent reason for it. The most jarring moment came when Wonder Woman turned on Kara. In the mission that preceded it, Wonder Woman inhales Scarecrow’s toxin and through a hallucination and it is revealed that her worst fear is turning on her friends, yet in the mission immediately after this sequence, she turns on her friends in reality! With no apparent motive to do so other than she is unconditionally on Superman’s side, making no moral decisions for herself. It came across so awkwardly and felt lazy, it’s as if the writers totally forgot about the last scene that illustrated that the last thing that Wonder Woman wants to do is turn on her friends.
I did appreciate the graphics in the game. Netherealm have really stepped up their game since the first Injustice and there are some truly stunning moments throughout Injustice 2 and I don’t just mean the cut-scenes. The area transitions are gorgeous to look at, the super-moves are very visually impressive and the detailed locations where the fights take place are also effective. The multiple unique environmental hazards present in each environment add an extra layer of unpredictability and opportunity to the fights and they do a good job of helping a player on the back foot start a comeback against their opponent. Facial animations and voice acting across the stable of characters are also solid.
Although the game is technically sound and the graphics are good looking, I wasn’t a fan of the character design overall this time around. The last game updated a few character designs, but for the most part followed the traditional style that the characters are portrayed in. This time, a lot of the character’s costumes look goofy and come off looking like toy armour rather than something a superhero would realistically wear. Also the redesign of the Joker makes no sense. Not only did it look like they were trying too hard to make him look edgy, but in this universe, Joker was killed at the beginning of the first Injustice game and he didn’t look like that when he died. In this game he appears to Harley through one of Scarecrow’s hallucinations and looks similar to the Jared Leto version of the character, but why? As far as we know, he has never looked like that in this universe during the time he was alive and if you are going to redesign him, don’t base it on Leto’s Joker, (AKA the worst version of the character.)
The co-op is as much fun as you would expect and certain matchups are more interesting than others. As with the first Injustice, pulling off combos and super-moves on someone that is physically sitting next to you is a lot more satisfying than doing it to some AI or an online player thousands of miles away. There is nothing quite like the couch co-op experience when it comes to a fighting game. Injustice 2 is a lot of fun to play in a group as well, setting up a tournament and throwing in real life forfeits also makes things more interesting.
As for the online play, the few matches I did play ran pretty well, there were no sudden glitches present throughout my time, the lag time between the player pressing a button and the character executing the corresponding move wasn’t that noticeable and matchmaking was fairly quick.
In summary, other than some jarring moments in the story, unclear character motivations and some naff character redesigns, there is a fun fighting game here buried underneath all of the nonsense, it’s just a pity that you have to put up with all of these hindrances to get to it. If you are a fan of the first game, then sure, I would recommend you picking this up and playing through it, but if you aren’t familiar with the series and are looking to jump into it and are considering grabbing the latest entry, I would highly encourage you to avoid it. You would be much better served picking up the first game. It will be a great deal cheaper than the latest version, the character designs are better and it’s a lot simpler and more fun overall.
I was so pleasantly surprised when I played the first Injustice game. I am a big DC fan, but fighting games aren’t one of my preferred genres in gaming, yet this fighting game set in the DC universe blew me away. The story was intriguing, the characters were diverse and it was a unique taste on a beloved universe. Therefore, the sequel had a fair amount to live up to and while it is still a fun fighting game with a multitude of colourful characters, it doesn’t feel anywhere near as special as Gods Among Us did.
The setup this time around revolves around Brainiac descending upon the earth in search of Kal-El and Kara, the last two remaining Kryptonians and eliminating them. Since the events of the last game, Batman has been keeping Superman in a special prison that suppresses his powers and the world has remained relatively free of crime, however Brainaic’s arrival changes all this. From here onwards we have our superhero story, which sees epic battles occur and mortal enemies being forced to work together against a common evil.
Most importantly, the game is fun. Gameplay feels pretty tight, which is both a positive and a negative when compared to Gods Among Us. The controls feel more solid and purposeful, but also feel more restrictive and less forgiving since the last time. This makes button bashing a void method and forces you to learn intricate button sequences if you want to pull off a decent combo. Thankfully, the super-moves are really fun to watch and make you feel awesome when you manage to successfully pull them off.
I’m going to delve deeper into the game’s story mode, so if you want to avoid spoilers, I would skip this paragraph. I was so looking forward to the story mode in this game, I loved the story mode in the first game and was relying on this one to deliver also, unfortunately I found it jarring and hard to swallow, even as a lifelong comic book fan. The story in Gods Among Us was controversial amongst DC fans, as it turned a number of iconic characters on their head, causing them to fight on the opposing side from what we are used to seeing. In that game though, I thought it worked, character motivations were clear and there was context given for the heroes and villains who switched sides. This time around, characters switch sides faster than a tennis ball at Wimbledon and half the time, there is no apparent reason for it. The most jarring moment came when Wonder Woman turned on Kara. In the mission that preceded it, Wonder Woman inhales Scarecrow’s toxin and through a hallucination and it is revealed that her worst fear is turning on her friends, yet in the mission immediately after this sequence, she turns on her friends in reality! With no apparent motive to do so other than she is unconditionally on Superman’s side, making no moral decisions for herself. It came across so awkwardly and felt lazy, it’s as if the writers totally forgot about the last scene that illustrated that the last thing that Wonder Woman wants to do is turn on her friends.
I did appreciate the graphics in the game. Netherealm have really stepped up their game since the first Injustice and there are some truly stunning moments throughout Injustice 2 and I don’t just mean the cut-scenes. The area transitions are gorgeous to look at, the super-moves are very visually impressive and the detailed locations where the fights take place are also effective. The multiple unique environmental hazards present in each environment add an extra layer of unpredictability and opportunity to the fights and they do a good job of helping a player on the back foot start a comeback against their opponent. Facial animations and voice acting across the stable of characters are also solid.
Although the game is technically sound and the graphics are good looking, I wasn’t a fan of the character design overall this time around. The last game updated a few character designs, but for the most part followed the traditional style that the characters are portrayed in. This time, a lot of the character’s costumes look goofy and come off looking like toy armour rather than something a superhero would realistically wear. Also the redesign of the Joker makes no sense. Not only did it look like they were trying too hard to make him look edgy, but in this universe, Joker was killed at the beginning of the first Injustice game and he didn’t look like that when he died. In this game he appears to Harley through one of Scarecrow’s hallucinations and looks similar to the Jared Leto version of the character, but why? As far as we know, he has never looked like that in this universe during the time he was alive and if you are going to redesign him, don’t base it on Leto’s Joker, (AKA the worst version of the character.)
The co-op is as much fun as you would expect and certain matchups are more interesting than others. As with the first Injustice, pulling off combos and super-moves on someone that is physically sitting next to you is a lot more satisfying than doing it to some AI or an online player thousands of miles away. There is nothing quite like the couch co-op experience when it comes to a fighting game. Injustice 2 is a lot of fun to play in a group as well, setting up a tournament and throwing in real life forfeits also makes things more interesting.
As for the online play, the few matches I did play ran pretty well, there were no sudden glitches present throughout my time, the lag time between the player pressing a button and the character executing the corresponding move wasn’t that noticeable and matchmaking was fairly quick.
In summary, other than some jarring moments in the story, unclear character motivations and some naff character redesigns, there is a fun fighting game here buried underneath all of the nonsense, it’s just a pity that you have to put up with all of these hindrances to get to it. If you are a fan of the first game, then sure, I would recommend you picking this up and playing through it, but if you aren’t familiar with the series and are looking to jump into it and are considering grabbing the latest entry, I would highly encourage you to avoid it. You would be much better served picking up the first game. It will be a great deal cheaper than the latest version, the character designs are better and it’s a lot simpler and more fun overall.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated UNCHARTED 4: A Thief's End in Video Games
Jul 21, 2017
Visuals (1 more)
Characters
Lack of set pieces (1 more)
Nadine
One Last Time...
This game was definitely my most anticipated of the year. Production was shaky, with the lead game designers being swapped over during the early stages of the game’s development, but the fact that Neil Druckman and Bruce Strailey had just finished developing the masterpiece that was The Last Of Us when they took this project on, I had every faith that this game was going to be great and it was, for the most part. The game opens with an aged Nathan who has left the treasure hunting life to settle down with his wife Elena. He now works as a diver for a salvaging company, but it is clear that he misses the more adventurous life. Then, long story short, Nate’s brother Sam is introduced into the fold and we get a fairly generic reason why Nate has never mentioned him in the past. Essentially Sam is in trouble and needs to pay off some dangerous people, which is why he needs Nate’s help in tracking down the pirate treasure that they began chasing a good number of years ago. Nate then lies to Elena about having to go to Malaysia for work reasons and their adventure begins.
The first thing that I want to praise this game for is its insanely impressive visuals. This is probably the best looking game that I have ever played through. Throughout the duration of the story, the player is granted with several outright beautiful landscapes and vistas. During the first half of Sam and Nate’s adventure, we see them go to Scotland, (which is actually where I’m from,) but that is probably the most boring location that they visit, everywhere else is warm and exotic and truly stunning. The incredible visuals caused me several times to get confused when I was given control of the player character, often times thinking that I was still watching a cutscene before realising, “wait, I can play this?!” The animations are also smooth for the majority of the game, for example early on in the game there is a mass brawl scene that takes place in a prison and although I was playing and controlling the punches that Nate was throwing, it looked like a choreographed fight from a movie like the Raid, which really did impress me in a big way. Although there are some animations that are a little more janky looking, especially when climbing and using the rope, but I’ll get back to that later.
As a character study, this is by far the best Uncharted game. The script is the best it’s been, the majority of the actors are brilliant in their roles and the relationships and emotions that are explored in this game are complex and compelling. However Uncharted is as much known for its characters and their relationships as it is for its epic, insane set pieces and that is sorely lacking here. There a few rinse and repeat building collapse and escape set pieces, which is nothing new to the Uncharted series and other than that, the big set piece of the game is the jeep chase that we saw at E3. Yeah, the biggest set piece in this game is a glorified car chase, as in pretty much the exact same jeep chase as we played though in Uncharted 2, but in Uncharted 2 it led to an epic train battle, which then led to the escape of the collapsed train. So basically, the biggest set piece in this game is only a portion of the awesome set piece that we already played through seven years ago. That is where this game sorely misses Amy Hennig’s influence, she really is a genius when it comes to epic action set pieces, whereas because Neil and Bruce are better are character, this is the main focus of Uncharted 4, but that’s never been the main selling point of the Uncharted series for me, but hey, it’s what we got, so let’s go through the characters that appear in Uncharted 4.
First of all, I do like this version of Nate, he is older more restrained and more reluctant to get himself into danger than he was before. His brother Sam is an okay character, if a bit of an arse at times, although he clearly knows his way around a treasure map and his relationship with Nate is quite an interesting one. It’s also nice to see Sully again even though his role in this game is fairly reserved, he is getting pretty old after all. The villains in this game aren’t great, which is pretty par for the course in the Uncharted series. The main antagonist is a wealthy man called Raef, he is about ages with Nate and he is a spoiled brat. He is a serviceable villain, but fairly generic and nothing to write home about. His sidekick, Nadine is the most unnecessary character I have seen in a game in a long time. There is literally no reason for her to be there other than for them to say, “look at us, we have a strong female character that can kick the male character’s ass, we aren’t sexist at all!” She brings absolutely nothing to the plot and if she didn’t exist the game would literally be no different to what it is now.
As I played through the game I marvelled at how well made everything was and up until about halfway through the game, my experience was totally smooth and seamless, but as I started making my way towards the end of the game, Nate started to randomly jut around as the animations felt more stiff and less free flowing. His hand was going through rocks, rather than leaning on them, his feet would either sink below the ground under him or hover above it slightly and then during one of the last chapters in the game, during yet another collapsing building escape sequence, while Nate was sliding, because I didn’t quite slide into the spot that I was supposed to, he got caught on a piece of debris and the game glitched out indefinitely. Eventually I had to restart the game from the last checkpoint to proceed. This was the only major glitch that I experienced during my playthrough, but when the rest of the game is so smooth, and that smooth standard is what you expect from all Naughty Dog games, this moment stands out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I have been quite critical of the game so far, but I really did enjoy my time with it. I was working full time while playing the game at nights, so it served as a nice respite from work and I savoured every moment of it, I had no intention to rush my way through to the end of the game, I think I beat it over 10 nights or so and that to me was a nice rate to play through the game at, because after you beat this one, that’s it, no more Uncharted, ever, so yeah, enjoy it. The game was a suitable send off for the epic series and as of now, it is my second favourite Uncharted game, behind Among Thieves. Unfortunately the glitches that I experienced towards the end of the game and the disturbing lack of set pieces throughout did detract from my experience, but if you are a long time Uncharted fan this is a must play and the standard of storytelling is truly astonishing.
The first thing that I want to praise this game for is its insanely impressive visuals. This is probably the best looking game that I have ever played through. Throughout the duration of the story, the player is granted with several outright beautiful landscapes and vistas. During the first half of Sam and Nate’s adventure, we see them go to Scotland, (which is actually where I’m from,) but that is probably the most boring location that they visit, everywhere else is warm and exotic and truly stunning. The incredible visuals caused me several times to get confused when I was given control of the player character, often times thinking that I was still watching a cutscene before realising, “wait, I can play this?!” The animations are also smooth for the majority of the game, for example early on in the game there is a mass brawl scene that takes place in a prison and although I was playing and controlling the punches that Nate was throwing, it looked like a choreographed fight from a movie like the Raid, which really did impress me in a big way. Although there are some animations that are a little more janky looking, especially when climbing and using the rope, but I’ll get back to that later.
As a character study, this is by far the best Uncharted game. The script is the best it’s been, the majority of the actors are brilliant in their roles and the relationships and emotions that are explored in this game are complex and compelling. However Uncharted is as much known for its characters and their relationships as it is for its epic, insane set pieces and that is sorely lacking here. There a few rinse and repeat building collapse and escape set pieces, which is nothing new to the Uncharted series and other than that, the big set piece of the game is the jeep chase that we saw at E3. Yeah, the biggest set piece in this game is a glorified car chase, as in pretty much the exact same jeep chase as we played though in Uncharted 2, but in Uncharted 2 it led to an epic train battle, which then led to the escape of the collapsed train. So basically, the biggest set piece in this game is only a portion of the awesome set piece that we already played through seven years ago. That is where this game sorely misses Amy Hennig’s influence, she really is a genius when it comes to epic action set pieces, whereas because Neil and Bruce are better are character, this is the main focus of Uncharted 4, but that’s never been the main selling point of the Uncharted series for me, but hey, it’s what we got, so let’s go through the characters that appear in Uncharted 4.
First of all, I do like this version of Nate, he is older more restrained and more reluctant to get himself into danger than he was before. His brother Sam is an okay character, if a bit of an arse at times, although he clearly knows his way around a treasure map and his relationship with Nate is quite an interesting one. It’s also nice to see Sully again even though his role in this game is fairly reserved, he is getting pretty old after all. The villains in this game aren’t great, which is pretty par for the course in the Uncharted series. The main antagonist is a wealthy man called Raef, he is about ages with Nate and he is a spoiled brat. He is a serviceable villain, but fairly generic and nothing to write home about. His sidekick, Nadine is the most unnecessary character I have seen in a game in a long time. There is literally no reason for her to be there other than for them to say, “look at us, we have a strong female character that can kick the male character’s ass, we aren’t sexist at all!” She brings absolutely nothing to the plot and if she didn’t exist the game would literally be no different to what it is now.
As I played through the game I marvelled at how well made everything was and up until about halfway through the game, my experience was totally smooth and seamless, but as I started making my way towards the end of the game, Nate started to randomly jut around as the animations felt more stiff and less free flowing. His hand was going through rocks, rather than leaning on them, his feet would either sink below the ground under him or hover above it slightly and then during one of the last chapters in the game, during yet another collapsing building escape sequence, while Nate was sliding, because I didn’t quite slide into the spot that I was supposed to, he got caught on a piece of debris and the game glitched out indefinitely. Eventually I had to restart the game from the last checkpoint to proceed. This was the only major glitch that I experienced during my playthrough, but when the rest of the game is so smooth, and that smooth standard is what you expect from all Naughty Dog games, this moment stands out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I have been quite critical of the game so far, but I really did enjoy my time with it. I was working full time while playing the game at nights, so it served as a nice respite from work and I savoured every moment of it, I had no intention to rush my way through to the end of the game, I think I beat it over 10 nights or so and that to me was a nice rate to play through the game at, because after you beat this one, that’s it, no more Uncharted, ever, so yeah, enjoy it. The game was a suitable send off for the epic series and as of now, it is my second favourite Uncharted game, behind Among Thieves. Unfortunately the glitches that I experienced towards the end of the game and the disturbing lack of set pieces throughout did detract from my experience, but if you are a long time Uncharted fan this is a must play and the standard of storytelling is truly astonishing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Battle Royale
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie is amazing. I know, I’m supposed to start with an intro but this film is just too good. I knew that I would love it and that I was looking forward to it for a fairly long time, but I loved this movie in ways that I didn’t even expect to. Based on the seminal Mark Millar event comic that saw most of the Marvel comic book universe go up against each other, this movie pits the heroes of the MCU against each other, which results in an exciting battle of all of the heroes that we’ve grown to love. The film doesn’t take much else from the comic though, other than the idea of the heroes fighting one another, there is no talk of exposing secret identities here, nor is there a battle between the massive amount of combatants that there were in the comic. If someone had told me these facts before I saw the film, I would have been going into the movie on a downer, but the thing is that this movie doesn’t have to be totally faithful to the comic book to be great, which is a credit to the writers and directors of the film. Watching the film is still like watching a comic book onscreen, just not the same comic book that you have previously read, which is awesome.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.
The vast majority of the cast of characters that have been introduced in the MCU so far are present here, besides Thor and Hulk. I can see why they omitted these characters, as they really would have given whatever side they chose an unfair advantage. We are left with two sides, there is Team Cap, made up of Cap, Falcon, Bucky, Ant Man, Scarlett Witch and Hawkeye and then there is Team Stark, made up of Iron Man, Vision, Black Widow, War Machine, Black Panther and Spiderman. I went into this movie siding with Team Cap, probably because Iron Man was ultimately the antagonist in the book, but as the film progressed, I have to admit that I could see either side of the argument. The fight sequences are exciting, due to the excellent stunt work and convincing use of CGI, also the acting here is surprisingly deep, especially for a Marvel movie, with several cast members giving passionate, convincing performances. While the action and humour that we have come to expect from a Marvel movie is present here, this film definitely does take on a darker tone in a few sequences and it also questions the idea of superheroes as a concept, there is not only a physical battle present in this movie, but also a psychological one as well as a socio-political one.
The score is used well, there is actually not too many songs present and the score is mostly made up of orchestral instrumental pieces, which also tells you something about the tone of this movie in comparison with previous Marvel films. The editing is also good, snappy enough to keep a consistent pace, while being clear enough to still tell a comprehensible, cohesive story.
Okay it is becoming difficult to continue writing this review without spoiling the movie, so I’ll do a quick summary then I will delve into spoiler territory. This is probably the best Marvel movie to date. It works as a sequel to Captain America Winter Soldier, it works as an ensemble Avengers piece, it works as a sufficient introduction to several new characters and it also blends the more serious tone of previous Cap movies with the more light hearted tone we have previously seen in the Avengers movies. It is a well told, tightly woven story, that still feels large in scope, which is not an easy thing to achieve, *coughs* Batman V Superman, *coughs.* While it’s not what I expected to get when they told us they were making Civil War, it is still a fantastic comic book movie, 9/10.
Okay, spoiler time. This movie came out in the UK a week before it did in America, so I have had the opportunity to see it twice so far. However, I am very aware that this movie isn’t opening in America until May 5th, so I do want to make it very clear that if you haven’t seen the film yet, you really should before reading the rest of this review.
They absolutely nail Spiderman here, in every way. He is the most faithful adaption we have had on the big screen to date, Tom Holland was the perfect choice and it there is no doubt that this young actor clearly has a very bright future ahead of him. Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei in the film and because she is so young compared to comic book Aunt May, I did initially have my doubts, but she also nails the small role that she has here. The suit is also awesome and after seeing Civil War, I honestly cannot wait for Spiderman: Homecoming. Black Panther is another new character that they introduce and do a good job with, they establish him quickly and clearly and from the get go, we understand this character and his motivations for feeling the ways that he does. The other surprise star of the film is Ant Man, who for the first time onscreen, becomes Giant Man and it is epic. This would have been so easy to make cheesy and just have it not work at all, but here it is convincing and very well implemented into the airport battle. The CGI during this scene is also fantastic. The airport scene is also a highlight of the movie, to see all of these characters onscreen together is truly amazing and as comic book fan I was in heaven. I still can’t believe that we got to see Spiderman making a Star Wars reference, whilst he was swinging around Giant Man, the nerd part of my brain went into overload and I physically couldn’t wipe off the massive, stupid grin that was on my face. The final battle is also pretty cool.
The third act starts off with Tony Stark deciding that he may be wrong about Bucky and that it wasn’t him who set off the bomb in Wakanda, so he, Bucky and Cap team up again to go and confront Zemo, but then the three are shown a CCTV tape from one of Bucky’s past missions, which reveals that it was in fact Bucky that killed Tony’s parents when he was being mind controlled and that Cap knew about this the whole time. This results in Tony being overcome with rage and attacking Cap and Bucky, during the fight he rips off Bucky’s robot arm, but Cap manages to overpower him and he sticks his shield through Tony’s ark reactor, shutting down his suit. We then learn that Black Panther has followed Tony and intends to kill Bucky for setting off the bomb that killed his father, but when he learns that Zemo was behind it, he confronts him and demands an explanation. Zemo tells him that his family were killed when Ultron attacked Sekovia and that he has planned to destroy the Avengers ever since, but because he knew he couldn’t take them down himself, he decided to instead pit them against each other and let them kill one another. Panther then decides that he is sick of seeing people being consumed by revenge and decides to let Zemo live, but Zemo attempts to kill himself anyway, before Panther stops him, telling him that he must remain alive to answer for his crimes. After their fight, Stark tells Cap that he doesn’t deserve his shield, and so Cap drops his shield and helps Bucky out of the bunker. The movie ends with Cap busting his teammates out of prison, where they were put after the airport battle and going into hiding in Black Panther’s mansion house in Wakanda. While the movie is fairly long I did feel that it could have went on a while longer, it’s almost as if the films are at a point now where they know they are going to continue the story in a few months, so they don’t even bother writing a proper ending for the films. This is the only criticism that I have though and like I said we will be getting another Marvel movie in a few months anyway so it doesn’t really matter how this one ends. So yeah, best Marvel movie so far and whether you are a comic book fan or not, this is a damn good time.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Shadows & Dreams in Books
Dec 19, 2017
Review** spoiler alert ** *Warning: contains spoilers, bad words, and quite a long rant*
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.